“Always try your best and what everyone else thinks of you is not your problem”.
It’s an old proverb but a useful one, particularly so for those with an occasional or general sense of inadequacy.
I suspect Alex Salmond is not one to generally suffer from low self esteem but he is approaching the stage of his career where it is difficult to avoid wondering how you will be thought of.
Quite possibly not unrelated to that, the papers and Twitter streams are full of coverage of Salmond finding Devo Max “very attractive” and his insistence that Scots “have a right” to a second question. I find it intriguing, and not a little amusing, that it is the Telegraph of all papers that are warning Salmond that SNP supporters may be infuriated at this news. If wishing made it so.
As someone who intends to vote Yes in a one question referendum, I certainly have no qualms with voting Yes-Yes in a two question referendum.
Indeed, in my view, Salmond’s intention to have Devo Max on the ballot slip is simple game theory and quite contrary to ‘abandoning’ independence as his detractors would have it.
Let’s look at two mutually exclusive scenarios:
Scenario 1
There is a 35% chance of winning a Yes/No ‘one-question’ referendum.
Scenario 2
There is a 20% chance of winning the independence element of a Yes/No ‘two-question’ referendum and a 60% chance of winning the Devo Max element.
Under Scenario 1, there is a 65% chance of being stuck with the status quo for a generation but under scenario 2, there is only a 32% chance (80% * 40%) of being stuck with the status quo for a generation.
Sure, Devo Max isn’t going to help the SNP realise its ambitions for getting rid of Trident, rebalancing inequality through the welfare system and having a strong Scottish voice at international tables, but including Devo Max on a ballot slip does not remove the SNP’s ability to take those arguments to the Scottish people and push for a Yes vote to the primary independence question. After all, if those arguments fall short, there is surely merit in having a satisfactory, if not spectacular, fall-back result.
The SNP may have many members that want independence and nothing less but more still recognise pragmatic progress towards their desired goal and will no doubt see Salmond’s cute push for a Devo Max option as a Win-Win-Win situation.
Win 1 – It pushes the Better Together triumvarate of Labour, Tories and Lib Dems into a space where they not only oppose independence, but are seen to oppose any proactive further devolution of powers in the near future. An unenviable place to be, one would have thought, particularly for the Lib Dems and Labour if they come over as indistinguishable on this issue from the Tories.
Win 2 – Scotland under Devo Max increases the probability of progress further down the line towards independence. It may not be the ‘big bang’ result of a Yes vote to full and near-immediate separation, but it’s progress and better than nothing.
Win 3 – It helps enable Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP for closing in on 18 years, to step down as First Minister and away from the SNP leadership with his head held high.
‘Shouldn’t Scotland’s interests be placed higher than Salmond’s desire for a legacy?’ put one political journalist on Twitter earlier today, but if the two objectives are wrapped up with each other in the First Minister’s mind, who would blame him for trying his best to achieve both before he ends his career.
#1 by Indy on July 3, 2012 - 7:59 am
The people who are opposed to discussing all options – who are overwhelmingly on the No side – just want to rig the debate because they think that is in their interests.
They see that polls do not show majority support for independence at this point so they want to fix things so that there is a debate on independence nothing less. In a very weird way they are the mirror image of the kind of hairy kneed fundamentalists of legend (who have already left the SNP incidentally).
There may also be people on the yes side who want to keep the debate strictly to an independence yes/no but in my view they are in a minority in the SNP. Because much as we believe in independence, that is based on our belief in the right to self-determination of the Scottish people, which means treating voters like adults and actually allowing them to discuss what balance of powers they think is right.
If it turned out that a majority of people thought that defence or foreign policy should stay with Westminster then that’s just the way it would be. Clearly I don’t think that is going to happen because both defence and foreign policy are areas where the argument for independence are strongest.
I would guess that many comments from people here are going to fall into the category of political positioning. They won’t at any point address the fact that a majority of Scots COULD choose the status quo or they COULD choose full independence or they COULD choose any point in between which they think represents the correct balance for Scotland. Rather, their comments will reflect entirely on the political interaction between the SNP and other parties and the actual voters – well, they come last. Talk about missing the point.
#2 by Indy on July 3, 2012 - 8:36 am
Incidentally I don’t think there needs to be a second question on Devo Max on the ballot paper to enable a debate. There could be a second question- but there wouldn’t have to be. But people need a clear idea of what the options are and they don’t have that. We know opinion polls show most Scots want the Scottish Parliament to control things like the economy, tax and benefits, energy etc but at present polls show that most people want monetary policy to stay reserved along with defence and foreign policy. But the unionist side refuse even to discuss that.
Whether or not a Devo Max question goes on the ballot paper is not actually the central issue. The central issue is that they refuse to discuss what further matters they think should come within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. This has resulted in the situation where – as the Future of Scotland poll showed – most people feel that the debate is not including them, they feel shut out of it. And no wonder because the SNP is the only party really willing to throw the whole thing open. Everyone else – including the Greens incidentally – is almost completely focussed on their own party political considerations.
#3 by Chris on July 3, 2012 - 11:37 am
I am nearly in full agreement with you. The problem is that with the stakes on the referendum so high there is little space for equivocation amongst political leaders. Remember most people you label Unionists aren’t actual unionists with some love for the UK. The debate is forcing people into positions they are uncomfortable with and this can only change once the independence referendum has been settled or is off the table.
(Although the SNP are only throwing the whole thing open because they recognise they are losing the independence argument. If they could win independence outright there is not a chance that they would put Devo-Max on the table. They too are completely focussed on their own party political considerations) Your belief in the honour of the SNP and the dishonour of all other parties is getting slightly ridiculous.
#4 by Indy on July 3, 2012 - 6:07 pm
Well you know if we are labelled nationalists I am going to label them unionists.
There are thinking unionists out there who realise that the status quo does not have majority support and who have real concerns about stuff like welfare reform and the increasing marketisation of public services – which WILL affect us if only financially if we stay where we are. But they are not allowed to say actually I think it would be quite a good thing if the Scottish Parliament rather than Westminster controlled welfare. I know that for a fact – they are not allowed to discuss that kind of thing because it supposedly benefits the SNP. So it is only people who are no longer elected members in those parties who are free to say what they actually think.
#5 by Alex Gallagher on July 3, 2012 - 8:47 am
So. The referendum has been reduced to a damage limitation exercise foe Eck’s ego.
What you describe may be win win win for Salmond. But it certainly is not a win for the Scottish people.
#6 by Jeff on July 3, 2012 - 10:10 am
Well thank goodness they get a vote on things then, or two even if they’re lucky.
#7 by hector on July 3, 2012 - 9:01 am
an issue that could change the way people look at an independent scotland is the possible referendum on the uks membership of the e.u. do scots feel comfortable with remaining remaining close to europe? or do they see themselves more as ‘british’? if you are happy with being in the e.u. and the uk was to leave or change its relationship with the e.u. would devo max be as attractive? and just how will the better together lot deal with this.
#8 by Colin Dunn on July 3, 2012 - 10:38 am
It’s ironic to note that Cameron seems to be suggesting that, as it’s such an important issue and requires thought and proper debate, a long run-in time for the EU referendum (2014 anyone?) is recommended, and that it mustn’t simply be a single in/out question but one offering choices for a renegotiated relationship as well (EU-Max?).
Might I propose the question – ‘Do you agree the UK should be an independent country?’
#9 by Doug Daniel on July 3, 2012 - 1:53 pm
That’s a such a cynically loaded question, essentially tricking people into voting “yes” when really they mean “no”.
The question has to be the far more balanced “Do you think the UK should leave the successful 40 year-old union to go it alone in the big, bad world?”
#10 by Longshanker on July 3, 2012 - 9:04 am
Interesting reference to Game theory.
If there is a referendum then I see independence or status quo as ‘go to jail do not pass go’ options.
At least with Devo something on the paper I’d have something to vote for rather than just spoil my paper.
Very similar to the prisoner’s dilemma.
#11 by Doug Daniel on July 3, 2012 - 1:58 pm
I find your stance on this increasingly befuddling, Longshanker. I get that you agree the status quo is broken, and that you have some sort of nameless dread about independence, but you make it sound like the middle option, rather than being your ideal settlement, is just a compromise that you’d be happy enough to use instead of just spoiling your ballot. Maybe I’m just reading too much into your wording, but it’d be interesting to know if there’s some fourth unstated option that would be your actual preference.
#12 by Alasdair Stirling on July 3, 2012 - 9:19 am
The DevoMax question is a matter of high strategy (or low politics depending on your point of view). Over the longer term averages, the polls break down: 30% support independence no matter what, 30% support the Union no matter what, 10% don’t know/don’t care and 30% support DevoMax (or some sort of enhanced devolution). Denied a DevoMax option the 30% split into three parts: 10% own up to be don’t know/don’t care, 30% tend to supporting the Union and the remaining 10% tend to support independence. Clearly, individual polls may vary from this longer term trend (e.g. the two most recent) but it is the longer term trend that underpins the SNP’s strategic analysis that the referendum will be won/lost on the votes of, what they consider to be, the ‘persuadable’ 20%.
In my view, there are two elements to the SNP’s high strategy/low politics in secure the support and votes of the persuadable 20%. First, they are defining independence as closely as possible to some concept of DevoMax (e.g. use the pound, keep the Queen etc.) so as to make an independence vote for the as small and as risk-free a step as possible for the persuadable 20%. Second, the SNP have to ensure that the persuadable 20% blame the Unionists their not being able to vote for a DevoMax option. Hence Salmond so openly supporting an option that, in my view, would ensure defeat for independence: he is, in effect, goading the Unionists into opposing DevoMax (which of course they do anyway).
#13 by Commenter on July 3, 2012 - 11:22 am
“he is, in effect, goading the Unionists into opposing DevoMax (which of course they do anyway)”.
Good point. I’ll wager that we’d never get ‘Devo Max’ even if we voted for it, because the people in charge absolutely oppose it.
#14 by Doug Daniel on July 3, 2012 - 2:07 pm
I have no idea why this isn’t completely obvious to everyone. The only reason the SNP are keeping Devo Max in the game is because the No camp’s utter rejection of it merely highlights how far removed they are from the will of the people.
Unless you’re like Ruth Davidson with her line in the sand, it makes absolutely no sense to oppose Devo Max unless you’re opposed to devolution in itself. Anyone calling themselves a “devolutionist” who opposes the chance for increased devolution is, quite frankly, talking out of their rear orifice.
There’s one simple fact about independence: it will happen. Whether that be in 2014 from the referendum, or in years to come from increased devolution (or frustration from a lack of it), Scotland will eventually join the rest of the world as an independent nation. Devo max will take us further along that road, albeit at a slower pace, so those who think opposing it will somehow stop Scotland’s journey to independence are in complete denial.
#15 by Alex Gallagher on July 3, 2012 - 5:05 pm
I have no idea why this isn’t completely obvious to everyone. The only reason the SNP are keeping Devo Max in the game is because the they know they cannot win a one-question referendum.
Unless you’re like the great panjandrum, afraid of losing a referendum on a straight in/out question, it makes absolutely no sense to support a referendum question on Devo Max. It is devolved position and is better addressed within devolution itself.
Anyone calling themselves a Nationalist who wants to pretend that devo max is anything more than a fig-leaf for Alex Salmond is quite frankly, talking out of their rear orifice.
There’s one simple fact about independence: it won’t happen in 2014. Devo max might save Eck’s blushes, that’s why he wants it on the ballot paper.
#16 by Commenter on July 3, 2012 - 9:06 pm
I realise that Alex Salmond looms large on the political landscape, but it seems to me that these days 50% of all ‘No campaign’ commentary is fuming against ‘Wee Eck’ or trying to paint the whole thing as the personal vainglorious project of the Dear Leader.
Goodness knows, one side of this argument does not have the monopoly on mature debate, but it does make me wonder – is this genuine feeling or cynical positioning? Can folk really see this issue in such one-dimensional terms?? It seems so… lumpen.
#17 by Doug Daniel on July 4, 2012 - 8:39 am
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I’m glad you liked my comment so much!
#18 by Ben Achie on July 3, 2012 - 10:16 am
Given the referendum is over two years away this is all counting “angels dancing on the head of a pin” – well, maybe not quite!
But a huge issue is likely to be that, by 2014, the proposals for an EU membership vote will be getting firmed up by the Tories. Don’t know where their sidekicks will be on this, but the Limpet-Dems will no doubt still be clinging on to government.
If the unionist parties are resolute in their denial of a second option (which is a fundamental denial of basic democratic rights), then they will have to give a cast-iron guarantee of another referendum, with the wordng of that fully specified.
Interestingly, the very worst option for Scotland would almost certainly be to remain part of a UK that had left Europe.
#19 by Iain Menzies on July 3, 2012 - 10:27 am
All of which is nice, but what the hell is Devo Max?
#20 by Jeff on July 3, 2012 - 11:41 am
For me, it’s basically full fiscal autonomy with a few bells and whistles.
The process whereby Devo Max would be agreed before even getting onto a ballot slip would be an utter nightmare which, in itself, probably prevents it ever being a viable referendum option. Doesn’t make it a bad idea to push for it though.
#21 by Chris on July 3, 2012 - 12:22 pm
And are you one of the three people who understand Full Fiscal Autonomy? One of whom has died and another of whom has forgotten?
#22 by Jeff on July 3, 2012 - 1:08 pm
I suspect I’d be in greater demand if that was the case. Surely the theory of spending what you raise through taxation (income, corporation, VAT etc) isn’t rocket science though, with a recharge to the UK for ‘shared services’?
DC would be PM for G20, EU, UN, invading Iran etc. As I say, rocket science…
#23 by Iain Menzies on July 3, 2012 - 2:01 pm
So you get Scotland paying a ‘tribute’ to london…yeah i cant see that causing any problems at all.
But what about the cost of things, what happens if/when London decides it wants to spend x on defence but scotland is only willing to pay up for 9% of y?
If all but defence and Foreign policy are done in edinburgh….how many MP’s would we send south?
What happens where you have a conflict between domestic and foreign policy…ie everything to do with the EU?
#24 by Indy on July 4, 2012 - 8:19 am
That’s when people decided sod this for a game of billiards, let’s just go for full independence.
#25 by Doug Daniel on July 3, 2012 - 2:09 pm
That’s why we would need a debate on it led by one of the parties that doesn’t favour independence, the lack of which is exactly why it won’t appear on the ballot.
#26 by JPJ2 on July 3, 2012 - 10:46 am
I would have said that there is clear evidence from polls that the majority of people in Scotland oppose the renewal of Trident and opposed the Iraq war.
Ironically those decisions remain with Westminster on a Devo Max outcome.
However, I remain convinced that the majority of Scots currently remain afraid of letting go of Westminster control in one single step, and therefore Devo Max is what people want and so should be on offer.
The fact that it is virtually certain to lead to the end of the union the next time some dream-of-empire foreign adventure occurs, or on the imposition of Trident renewal, is blindingly obvious to any sentient strategist whether unionist or nationalist.
The problem for the unionists is that in denying Devo Max they are denying the people what they want now, whereas the nationalist are not doing that. It is true that on this analysis both sets of players are following their own interests, but one set of players are giving people what they want and the other set are not. I don’t see how that can ultimately end well for the ever-retreating forces of unionism.
#27 by Chris on July 3, 2012 - 11:27 am
The problem with Devo Max is that it will not get debated in the debate about independence. It does seem attractive but I don’t know what it really means: it may even be worse than independence ie all the stupid duplication but none of the actual advantages of independence.
If we are to have a second question it should be after an independence referendum. If independence is lost (as surely even the SNP recognise that this is going to happen), then we can have a proper debate about Devo Plus, Full Fiscal Autonomy, Devo Max, etc. But at the moment it is not getting a look-in and there is not a CSA style Devo-Max movement. It is simply being driven as a fallback for independence supporters.
I am also slightly suspicious that this is an attempt to tie up the whole referendum in the courts until after 2016. I am not overly cynical but I can see the advantages for the long term SNP strategy of putting the independence referendum back to a later date when they might win it, rather than lose it in 2014 and wait another 20 years. I know that any accusations of the SNP engaging in cynical politics gives rise to howls of apoplexy here, but the stakes are very high.
In addition, as stated before Devolution is an agreement with the rest of the UK. If Devo-Max means that we get to keep all of the oil money to ourselves and let the rest of the UK suffer cuts in public expenditure or higher taxes to make up the difference, then the rest of the UK will almost certainly object. And given that we aren’t prepared to use independence as a lever, our bargaining chip is not huge.
I also think the polls only tell us people’s gut feeling. Devo-max sounds like a good thing. But I suspect if you put out a poll offering a 3-way choice between Devolution, Independence and – say – Devo-Plus you would get the same result. In the end most people, including me, don’t know what Devo-Max is. There are a variety of options supporting enhanced devolution and discussing which of these would be best would not get a look-in whilst the big question of independence is being debated.
#28 by Doug Daniel on July 3, 2012 - 2:39 pm
“If independence is lost (as surely even the SNP recognise that this is going to happen)”
Keep telling yourself that buddy. The reality is we’re going to have two years where the differences between the Westminster and Holyrood ways of doing things are going to become more and more blatant. Two years of people getting used to the idea that Scotland could be an independent nation, as well as two years of discussions of what powers Scotland should have. I think it’s safe to say there’s already a majority in favour of most taxes being devolved, and it can only be a matter of time before many people who currently support the union will see the benefits of, erm, benefits being devolved along with that. As people see more and more things they care about being threatened by Westminster, they’re going to think “shouldn’t that be devolved as well?” Eventually, you’ll get once-staunch unionists (well, fairly anyway) questioning why even the “holy grail” powers like defence and foreign affairs are held by a government which will increasingly seem hell-bent on destroying our way of life.
At that point, the status quo just isn’t good enough. People who would have voted for devo max instead vote for the option that gives them what they DO want, rather than the one that gives them what they don’t. “Do I really care about Scotland allegedly having a place at the table of the UN Security Council if it means my wages are cut and I have a life on the breadline to look forward to when I retire?” “What good is the UK’s supposed influence in world politics if we can’t even afford to heat our own homes?” Stuff like that.
People are going to start thinking about what powers Scotland should have, which is dangerous for politicians. They don’t like it when we decide things for ourselves. The only reason any debate on devolution is being stifled by unionists – even the so-called “devolutionists” – is because they can’t control the result. If the powers in the last Scotland Bill had been defined by a public debate rather than the closed political process of the Calman Commission, nobody in their right mind could possibly think the results would have been anywhere near similar.
When people such as Margaret Curran say “we need to decide if we’re staying in the union first”, what they mean is “you need to vote to stay in the union, and then we’ll decide if we need any more devolution.” Devolution is a politician’s process, which is why we’re not allowed to vote on it.
#29 by Chris on July 3, 2012 - 3:23 pm
I know you have to convince yourself. But this is hell of a narrative being built up. There are two scenarios
Scenario 1.
Support for independence is latent and will grow as the differences between Scotland and the UK emerge.
However despite this likely growth in support for independence the SNP will put forward a second question.
This will be done in order to reflect a clear demand of the Scottish people, even though no political party supports it and, as yet, there is no independent campaign in favour of it.
The SNP are putting this forward even though it will probably completely stymie the achievement of a Yes vote in the referendum.
By putting this forward the referendum will be vulnerable to a legal challenge by any UK citizen who believes the referendum to be illegal.
Scenario 2
1. The SNP know they won’t win the referendum, support has already fallen
2. Devo-max is the next best thing
I invite you to ask Mr Occam to borrow his razor.
#30 by Doug Daniel on July 3, 2012 - 4:44 pm
The SNP’s stated position is that they prefer one question. The simplest interpretation of this is that they would prefer one question.
There’s your Occam’s razor.
I’ve no need to convince myself of anything, though. Scotland has never voted in favour of powers being retained by Westminster. We have, however, twice voted for powers to be brought to Edinburgh, even though we were ignored the first time. I see absolutely no reason why this trend should suddenly change.
The only way independence will lose is if Devo Max is in the mix, because people tend to go for middle options. That’s why unionist opposition to it is so bizarre – it’s like they see a £5 note on the ground, but refuse to pick it up because they’re convinced there’s a catch. Wielding Occam’s razor again, you can only deduce that they simply don’t want further devolution for Scotland, or at least don’t want the hoi palloi to have a say on it – much better to get another commission to go away for a year and come back with the result they were tasked with arriving at.
#31 by Iain Menzies on July 3, 2012 - 5:18 pm
yeah westminster doesnt want to give edinburgh (not scotland) more power….thats why in 1998 and with calman edinburgh ended up with less power…..oh wait…
#32 by Doug Daniel on July 4, 2012 - 1:04 am
Missing the point nicely there. I’m on about the way politicians don’t want to lose control of the devolution process. The establishment of Holyrood effectively transferred the powers of the Scottish Office to the Scottish Parliament, so there was no public debate about which powers should be devolved. As for Calman, as I’ve said in another comment, no one in their right mind could possibly think the Calman proposals went anywhere like as far as they would have if it had been a process led by the public rather than politicians. Putting devo max on a referendum paper would require engagement with the public to see what powers they think should constitute devo max, and then getting them to vote on it. From the comments of people like Margaret Curran last week and other unionist politicians this year, it’s been blatantly obvious to me that the “further powers” that we’re told we’ll get will just be a case of another commission, which yet again will fail to give us the powers the majority of people in Scotland want Edinburgh to have.
The whole process will take years, whereas people want these powers NOW. Why would the NO camp be so scared of telling us what they would devolve unless they know we’re not going to like it?
#33 by Chris on July 3, 2012 - 6:11 pm
It is simpler than that really.
People will vote for a middle ground that won’t get debated and the terms of which will be set by the SNP with their parliamentary majority. It would be much better to have an open debate on what powers to transfer rather than have a middle-ground option that is not in the middle but is as close to independence as possible.
If there is to be a middleground option, its terms ought to be set by a sizeable part of civil society in Scotland who genuinely want it, not by the SNP as a fallback option.
#34 by Doug Daniel on July 4, 2012 - 12:52 am
Right, and the SNP have so far refused to define Devo Max, because independence is the SNP’s goal and one question is their preferred option. All they’ve done is said they’re not closing the door to it and if someone can make the case for it, they would include it on the referendum if it has popular support. But no one is going to do that, so it won’t be on the referendum.
#35 by Don McC on July 3, 2012 - 6:58 pm
The reason the dependency parties don’t want a devo max question is simply because they have convinced themselves that Salmond wants it. Where the SNP are involved, the dependency parties (and their supporters) lose all sense of reason and rational thought.
The facts are these – the SNP favours a single question; the evidence shows that a straight choice between the status quo and independence doesn’t favour a vote for the status quo; Scots don’t trust the jam tomorrow promises from an Eton educated tory prime minister.
Salmond has played the dependency parties (and their supporters). Their rabid hatred of the SNP means they aren’t able to accept that. After the referendum, they’ll have to but expect it to take even longer than it took them to accept the results of the last two Holyrood elections.
#36 by Indy on July 3, 2012 - 6:17 pm
It is being discussed though. It is being discussed all over the place – just not in the Scottish Parliament. This is part of what is so wrong with Scottish politics at the moment. Labour members of my acquaintance are quite aware of it and quite interested in it. They may not (yet) support full independence but they don’t want another ten, twenty or more years of Tory policies hammering the disabled, the unemployed, undermining public services, damaging the fabric of society. Lots of people are talking about that out there in the real world.
#37 by Dubbieside on July 3, 2012 - 9:09 pm
Indy
I would not be too sure that Labour members do not want another ten or twenty years of Tory policies. If they do they are either not making that clear to the Scottish Labour hierarchy or the hierarchy are totally ignoring them.
Scottish labour would appear to have no problems with tory money from south of the boarder funding the dependency campaign whos number one aim is to keep David Cameron Prime Minister of Scotland and the rest of the union.
They also appear to have no problems with Tory policy as earlier this year 38 Scottish Labour MPs voted for a Labour amendment to support further privatisation of the NHS in England and Wales.
#38 by Indy on July 4, 2012 - 7:29 pm
There are Labour members – and Labour members. Some of them quite surprising.
Example: “Only halfway through recession . Jobless youngsters’ benefits threatened. Devolution can’t protect them. Better together with the Tories?”
That is a tweet from Charlie Gordon – ex Labour MSP, ex leader of Glasgow City Council.
As soon as they are off the leash they can say stuff like that. Many of the ones still subject to the Labour whip are THINKING stuff like that.
It doesn’t mean they are ready to embrace independence but do you know what I think the biggest barrier is to them making the leap? It is us, it is the SNP. Because they loathe us and the line that people are taking internally is that any discussion of expanding devolution benefits us, it takes them further onto our ground, therefore they are not allowed to go off script – the script being that independence and devolution are opposites and there can be no discussion of further devolution until independence has been killed off, at which point the SNP will collapse and Labour will be re-elected to universal rejoicing.
Now what do we do in that situation? Act as childishly as they are? Say we also refuse to even discuss anything that does not suit our script? I don’t think so. We have to be more open minded than that and facilitate as wide a debate as we can so that as many people as possible can actually engage in it.
#39 by Andrew Smith on July 3, 2012 - 2:25 pm
I think this is a cynical political exercise on the part of the SNP. I don’t believe that it is a commitment to the democratic process which is making them argue for it; it is purely because they are worried that they may lose the main vote. The SNP have already unveiled their preferred wording and have Sturgeon, among others, has committed them to one question. The only thing which could realistically change that is demands from ‘civic Scotland’ (whoever they are). There is little demand of a movement from any concerted group who are demanding it, so it seems like the only people really advocating it are some SNP head honchos. I know a few people in the party who only talk about devo-max in terms of a ‘fallback’ which is what it would be.
One point to consider is that every political party in Scotland now talks about more powers, and I have no doubt that this will continue until the referendum. I would expect shortly before a one question referendum you would see Lib Dems and Labour both coming out in favour of vastly greater powers, this would be in an attempt to ‘reason’ with the electorate by saying in effect that ‘even if you vote no you will have all of these powers.’
While I don’t doubt that people would like the Scottish Parliament to have more powers I’m not convinced that all of these people necessarily want Scotland to be responsible for raising all taxes and having a fully independent fiscal policy. I would expect that once Devo Max is defined then support for it will change, especially as it’s unlikely that any organisations will actually be campaigning for it.
#40 by Commenter on July 3, 2012 - 9:15 pm
you would see Lib Dems and Labour both coming out in favour of vastly greater powers
I agree that this is likely. Possibly there will be meat to these promises, and they will hinge of course on voting in Labour in 2015 or whenever the next GE lies. The key aspect will be that any proposals can’t result in Scottish Labour MPs not being able to vote on the English matters of importance, because that’s what Scottish Labour MPs are for. If they can’t do that, Scotland might as well be independent.
#41 by Barbarian on July 3, 2012 - 2:46 pm
First comment for weeks. Still unwell but in a better state than previously. Thought I’d better contribute.
Devomax appearing in the Referendum as an option will simply give the SNP’s opponents more ammunition.
I don’t know what the hell has happened, but it seems to me that the SNP has lost control of their campaign policy strategy.
I keep harking on about it but a three year campaign is an absolute bloody nightmare for the SNP. Not only will it p***people off, it leaves their opponents with a huge amount of time to oppose the SNP, a luxury in politics. Added to that is the impression that the day-to-day governance of Scotland is no longer a priority, its no wonder that the polls show a drop in support for independence.
I have no idea what side kicked off the idea of Devo Max being favoured by Salmond, but it is simply adding to the confusion and therefore damaging to the SNP.
#42 by Colin Dunn on July 3, 2012 - 3:51 pm
“Added to that is the impression that the day-to-day governance of Scotland is no longer a priority, its no wonder that the polls show a drop in support for independence.”
Not one that will last, I think, now that Blair Jenkins and Dennis Canavan have taken over the running of the Yes Scotland campaign.
Some see this as a step back for the SNP, but I think this frees them to focus on making sure Scotland shines brighter than the rest of the UK over the next two years. It also reassures voters who support indy but dislike the SNP and/or Salmond and won’t vote for it if they see it as an SNP vehicle.
#43 by MJL on July 3, 2012 - 3:43 pm
I know this is off topic-ish but is the bust in the photo supposed to be of Alex Salmond? it looks more like Liam Fox to me…
#44 by Commenter on July 3, 2012 - 4:47 pm
I was thinking Glenn Michael.
#45 by Cath on July 3, 2012 - 5:14 pm
I favour a one question referendum, and favour independence.
However for the next couple of years, it’s the debate that’s important, not the outcome. And the debate has to be about Scotiand’s future and what people want it to look like. That means looking at how things are structured now, whether that’s working, and what we need to make it work in a way that better suits us.
It’s clear the status quo doens’t work. Arbitary lines drawn on “this is devolved; this is reserved” means policy making can’t be joined up. For example, health and social services are devolved and being reformed to be more joined up while welfare is reserved to Westminster and being reformed in a totally different direction – completely in opposition to what’s happening with health and social care here. Welfare is a critical part of health and social care, not a separate function and having them separated makes no sense at all.
So “devo-max”, full fiscal autonomy, call it what you will is something that is a natural part of the discussion as we look at what further powers we need devolved, and which we might want devolved. At this stage most people won’t even have a clue which powers are or aren’t devolved and what that means for policy making.
Personally, I was devo-max until I read somewhere that under that welfare woud remain at Westminster and decided that wasn’t good enough. Plus I want rid of trident and would like a Scottish passport – hence I moved to indy.
This is what the debate should be about at this stage – thinking about, and educating people about the options, what they would mean, and their various pros and cons. Only once that’s done can people make a reasoned decision. So further devolution has to be a part of the debate, whether it ends up on the paper or not.
#46 by Indy on July 4, 2012 - 8:28 am
Spot on.
#47 by jafurn on July 3, 2012 - 6:51 pm
Why do people have a problem with this?
I suspect it is just a case of mischief making from the Unionists who are becoming more and more desperate now that they are in the position of having to defend their stance of offering the Status Quo as the only alternative to Independence.
As leader of the SNP Mr Salmond advocates and campaigns and supports a single YES or NO question on Independence. However as First Minister of the Scottish Government he has to represent the views of all of Scotland and not only the SNP. In that capacity he is saying ..let’s listen to what the People are saying and take it from there. The Unionist parties are refusing to listen to,what is generally perceived from polls etc.,what the majority of the people seem to say that they want. As he said last week at FMQs ‘woe betide a party who ignores the wishes of the people’ or words to that effect.
The Unionists are painting themselves into a corner on this issue and should be careful what they wish for.
A single question which denies people a choice they may have wanted, may push them in the opposite direction from the people they perceive to be denying them that choice.
#48 by Orkneybear on July 3, 2012 - 9:58 pm
Salmond can’t offer DevoMax to the Scottish people only Cameron can do that.
His “we’ll perhaps give you something if you vote No” just isn’t tenable.
The ball is in the Unionist’s court and it appear that they wont produce a detailed DevoMax proposal to offer to us in a Referendum. All they are campaigning for is ‘No’
It defeats me why anybody in the Independence lobby would be worried by this?
#49 by Steve on July 4, 2012 - 9:21 am
The “unionists” here seem to be running the George Foulkes line of attack – Yes Alex Salmond is proposing to give people what they want, but he’s doing it on purpose!
The main concern I have is the legality issue, it’s all very well legislating for two questions if that’s legally straightforward, but if not and it results in the whole thing getting caught up in the courts that’s bad for everyone.
#50 by Galen10 on July 4, 2012 - 11:26 am
orkneybear @47 is right; only Westminster can deliver Devo Plus/Max/Mebbe, so you all better get used to the idea that even if a second question WAS included in 2014, and carried the day in the referendum, the subsequent negotiations would take years, and the chances are against them being appeoved @ Westminster.
There is no “Devo-Max etc.” champion either Scotland or the UK which could or would put the considerable effort and resources required into fashioning such a settlement.
I reckon the best strategy is to ensure that the next 24 months is about presenting the case for why we are “Better Apart”, and making it quite plain we don’t WANT a second question; call the Unionist’s bluff!!
Even if the vote in 2014 is “no”, the desire for more devolution is not going to go away, and the Unionist parties are probably in for a nasty shock if they think the Scottish people will just give up on the idea.
Given the current economic climate, and the increasingly evident shambles that is our system of governance @ Westminster, the attractions of full independence over even FFA will become ever clearer. Why have autonomy in “almost” everything, and yet remain shackled to the mortally ill Unionist project?
#51 by Indy on July 4, 2012 - 7:16 pm
That approach is fundamentally wrong and I’ll tell you why I think that.
It is based -as all such comments are – on the belief that this is a battle between the SNP and the unionists in which the Scottish people sit passively watching every stroke and counter stroke as though it was a game of tennis. Then at the end of play they get to vote who is the winner.
That may be a model which can explain elections – though it also maybe explains why turnouts keep falling – but this is not an election. This is a referendum in which we are asking people to vote as individuals on the future of their country having considered all the options. And that means discussing all the options.
As I said Devo Max has to be part of that discussion – it does not have to go on the ballot paper and there are all kinds of reasons why it probably won’t be. But it has to be on the table.